Barack Obama Elected President!

[Roman]

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/mc...iness_bunk.html

[George008]

Umm ok..Yeah. I wasn't aiming a personal attack at your knowledge of the football television schedule. Sorry if you feel that way. I was just using the Fox numbers to somewhat debunk the football lead in theory. His speech was over an hour long. The nielson ratings are an average of the audience throughout the entirety speech. If people weren't interested in the speech itself, then the would have turned the channel. I guess there could have been a few that left the game on and walked away...

[Roman]

So, you can't post his plan?

I'm not taking your word for that. I'm sorry, but show me proof. I and others have presented proof from many websites that debunk this lie that Obama would raise taxes. Casey, you said he will, and that McCain won't.

Let's just see some articles on this so we can decide for ourselves.

[George008]

How would increasing the tax burnden of corporations help the economy?

Are you telling me that Obama is not going to raise taxes on income over $250,000?

Ok. give me a few minutes...I will find McCain's plan and post...

[George008]

John McCain's support of small businesses

Obama will increase taxes on small business with income of $250,000+

This article puts a postitive spin on Obama's plan, but it still includes his tax increase on 250,000

This article has a fairly negative spin on Obama's tax increases.

I think you are of the mind that Obama will not increase taxes on you. He will increase taxes on the country as a whole.

McCain has pledged to raise taxes on no one.

[Roman]

http://www.ctj.org/html/mcca00pr.htm

I just found this, so everyone can read it and decided for themselves.

Why should I care if some making A QUARTER OF A MILLION DOLLARS A YEAR have their income taxes raised?

[Adam]

Corporations and the wealthy in your country for 8 years now have continually had their tax burden lowered.... how on earth does this help the middle-lower class income earner? All I am saying is the system is obviously out of whack... and McCain's approach to the situation is basically the same of George W. Bush. Look what 8 years of his presidency has done to the most powerful economy in the world?

I am not an economist, but it doesn't take one to realize there is a serious problem in the tax burden ration down there and its obviously one of the many contributing factors to the stunted economy down there.

[Roman]

Great! Taxes on businesses SHOULD be raised when you make over $250,000 a year.

That's good news!

[Roman]

On the Issues

McCain's Tax Plan Aids Wealthy, Says Group

By Perry Bacon Jr.

A detailed analysis of the candidates' tax plans confirms one of Barack Obama's top arguments against John McCain: the Arizona senator's proposals would offer substantial benefits to wealthy Americans.

An analysis of both campaigns proposals by the Washington-based, nonpartisan Tax Policy Center found that for people with incomes between $66,354 and $111,645, Obama's proposals would cut their taxes by more than $1000, compared to around $300 under McCain's plan. But for Americans with incomes above $603,402, Obama would raise their taxes dramatically, by more than $115,000 a year, while McCain would cut them by $45,000.

"The Obama tax plan would make the tax system significantly more progressive by providing large tax breaks to those at the bottom of the income scale and raising taxes significantly on upper-income earners," the group concludes. "The McCain tax plan would make the tax system more regressive.... It would do so by providing relatively little tax relief to those at the bottom of the income scale while providing huge tax cuts to households at the very top of the income distribution."

McCain argues that such high taxes on the wealthy will slow economic growth. And the report also gives credence to another of McCain's arguments about Obama's plan, it will raise taxes on seniors. Because seniors are more reliant on gains from investments and capital gains, which Obama would increase, the group estimates Obama would raise taxes on more than ten million seniors.

Obama has proposed exempting seniors who make less than $50,000 a year from paying taxes, an idea the Tax Policy Center said "is poorly designed according to its current description and creates inequity between older and younger taxpayers with the same income."

The group is skeptical about both candidates' ideas about closing the deficit, suggesting McCain has not been detailed in which programs he will cut, while Obama might be overestimating how much can be gained by combating loopholes in the tax code that allow corporations to reduce their tax burdens.

From The Washington Post.

[George008]

You shouldn't have to care. That outlook just shows that you are looking out for yourself, rather than for the good of people that create jobs. I am voting on what will make IMO my country better. Not what will personally benefit me.

So then, tell me, how will that help produce more jobs? If the employers are taxed more...

[George008]

The main difference between McCain and Bush, is that McCain will curb spening. While Bush did not. Partly because of the war...

If spending is reduced and the government has less need to tax and plays less of a role in the free market...it will spur growth

I could say the same of the Clinton era (Obama's plans are similar). His policies actually lead us into a recession, along with 9/11, and the housing market. Bush has been fighting to keep us out of recession basically since 2001. We have not been in one since the very year Bush took over.

Also, I ask of you..Which party do you think wanted to lessen the requirements to obtain a mortgage?

Bush reduced taxes on everyone...his main mistake was not to reduce spending along with the reduced federal income.

[Wales2004]

I truly hate going back on my word about directly posting responses to you because it devalues my word but I guess I can live with it this time. If you notice my post had these emoticons which I thought symbolized laughter so I can't tell how that translates into my thinking it's a ersonal attack. But if you ever feel the need to launch a personal attack at me go right ahead. I am not going to become defensive about it because it's senseless for me to get bent out of shape over someone who doesn't even know me. I think I told you before that I post for entertainment. If it stops being fun then I won't do it anymore.

I think more than a few people might have had their televisions on while they did other things but maybe I'm wrong and the nation is full of more attentive people than I. Ten minutes is almost too long for me so I know I couldn't devote an hour or more to listening to anyone who doesn't speak well and is not lively. I think there's a difference between having interest in something and actually paying attention.

There's no need to debunk the football lead in theory since I'm not suggesting it's fact. But if some viewers left their televisions on after the game (which is probably highly like since they started out with about 14 million during the game and ended up with 8 million during the speech) then it's not a stretch to suggest that it helped bring up his overall totals. The bottom line is he got the numbers and this isn't debate worthy as far as I am concerned. I really just wanted you to know that you can go for the jugular if it will make you happy. What matters is that most is that you're happy since I think happiness is a wonderful thing.

[George008]

Sorry, it just seemed like you were a little perturbed with the whole..."I didn't think people thought the game came on every channel" comment. I was trying to let you know I meant nothing personal with my comment about Fox having the highest ratings.

IA. Posting here for me...is all in good fun!

Sure..its possible. Maybe some did that during Palin and Obama's speech as well.

Sorry again, I thought you were making a strong point with the football game lead in..because every post that you have made about the ratings of McCain's speech has also included a comment about the game being a lead in.

No, I dont think I have a need to go for the jugular. My approach is one more of using logic rather than emotion. I do feel regret when I feel that some have misinterpreted my tone. And I will apologize accordingly when I feel that way. Misinterpreting tone is very easy to do when reading instead of face to face conversation. I can assure you that I am not an evil person.

[Wales2004]

I am not well versed on the economy but didn't Bill Clinton leave a budget surplus?

From personal experience I know that our property value declined while the senior Bush was in office and I attributed that to the Gulf War, rise in unemployment and all that not so good things that go along with it. Things improved economically under Clinton. Jr Bush started giving out the surplus funds to the taxpayers which is fine since it was our money anyway.

I don't believe Clinton's policies led the country into a recession unless it happened elsewhere and skipped over California. The economy vastly improved.

I happen to think that it's cyclical and "war" generally leads to a drain on the economy and rise in unemployment. I think it's wrong to blame Clinton since he had to deal with the economic mess caused by the Senior Bush who would have been re-elected if not for that mess.

[Wales2004]

To everyone that reads any of my posts, I apologize for my horrid typos and atrocious grammar. It's plain to see that the California public school system has failed me or maybe I've failed it but hopefully this will prompt you to support better education across the board.